Bombay High Court

SHRI. SANTOSH SHRIRAM SHIRGAONKAR AND ORS.versusDR. SHRI. SONAL DILIP KADAM

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that the appeal is not maintainable until the statutory deposit is made and that liability extends to Respondent No.1 under Section 12, thereby allowing the withdrawal application partly.

Summary

The appellant, Santosh Shirgaonkar & Ors., deposited Rs.7,50,657 but failed to meet the full statutory deposit required under the proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and sought time to comply. The court stood over the matter to 22‑Oct‑2026, warning that the appeal would be dismissed if compliance was not achieved. In the interim application, Dr. Sonal Kadam, the principal employer, sought withdrawal of the deposited amount, arguing that the appeal was not maintainable due to the incomplete deposit and that there was no employer‑employee relationship. Respondent No.1 contended liability under Section 12 of the Act despite denying such a relationship and requested time to deposit the balance. The court held that liability extended to Respondent No.1 under Section 12, allowed the interim application partly, and ordered the amount to be disbursed with interest upon an undertaking, while keeping the appeal pending.

Issues considered

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the appellant has not deposited the full amount required under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
Whether Respondent No.1 is liable as an employer under Section 12 of the Act despite denial of an employer‑employee relationship.
Whether the amount deposited by the appellant can be withdrawn by the applicant.

Legislation cited

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 — s. 12, 30(1)

Subjects

Workmen’s Compensation
Section 30 compliance
Employer‑employee relationship
Interim relief
Appeal maintainability
Statutory deposit
Liability under Section 12

Judgment

                        1                           62-IA-185-2026 (C)

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2026
                              IN
                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2026

Shri. Santosh Shriram Shirgaonkar & Ors.          …...Applicants
       Vs.
Dr. Shri. Sonal Dilip Kadam                       …...Respondent

                            WITH
            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10375 OF 2025
                              IN
                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2026

Dr. Shri. Sonal Dilip Kadam                       ........Applicant
       Vs.
Shri. Santosh Shriram Shirgaonkar & Ors.          .......Respondents

                                 ...
Mr. Rahul Walvekar with Mr. Kunal Nalwade, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Jayant J. Bardeskar (through VC) with Mr. Nakul Shukla,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 in FA (st) No.17939 of 2025 and
Applicant in IA. No.185 of 2026.
                                 …

                  CORAM :      SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                    DATE :     24TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :


FIRST APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2026:

.     It transpires from the brief submissions by the parties that the

Appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.7,50,657/-, which is not in

consonance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the
                          2                             62-IA-185-2026 (C)

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Appellant seeks time to

take necessary steps to comply with the statutory requirement.

2.    Stand over to 22.10.2026.

3.    Interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till then.

4.    It is made clear that, if the requisite compliance is not made

before the next date of hearing, the First Appeal shall be liable to be

dismissed.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2026:

.     The    Applicant    seeks   withdrawal      of   the   amount    of

Rs.7,50,657/- deposited by Respondent No.2- Sonal Dilip Kadam, the

principal employer. For the reasons stated in the Application,

disbursement of the said amount is solicited.

2.    It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that

the Appeal itself is not maintainable for non-compliance with Section

30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, as the entire

amount awarded has not been deposited.

3.    Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that

his client is not liable to pay the compensation, as there is no

employer-employee relationship between the parties. He further

submits that the Appeal preferred by his client involves substantial
                            3                          62-IA-185-2026 (C)

questions of law. He seeks time to deposit the balance amount.

4.       It is the statutory mandate under Section 30 to deposit the

amount payable under the order appealed against. In the present

case, the amount towards penalty and interest has not been

deposited.

5.       This Court granted interim relief on 01.08.2025, which

continues to operate till date. Respondent No.1 has sought time to

deposit the balance amount.

6.       Prima facie, the issue regarding the employer-employee

relationship has been dealt with by the Court, and judgments have

also been relied upon. By implication of Section 12 of the Act, the

liability extends to Respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, I

propose to allow the Application.

7.       The Civil Application is allowed partly.

8.       The Applicant shall be disbursed the amount of Rs.7,50,657/-

along with accrued interest, upon furnishing an undertaking to the

satisfaction of the Commissioner.



                                         [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…